Having worked with UIs that have the behavior of accepting an
address/prefix-len and mapping it to a prefix, (i.e., network/prefix-len
and zeroing out the non-significant bits) - some users really like it
as they don't have to do the transformation from address to network,
notably for odd length prefixes, while other users hate it as the system
shows/does something different than what they entered.
In the end the current definition is what it is. If we want something
different we can define it. I personally think an address/prefix-len
would be useful, and would leave ip-prefix as is. (again just an
individual's opinion.)
Lou
On 4/18/2019 6:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
2001:db8::/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 are NOT the same if you use them.
Why are they not the same if you define a prefix?
Because they're not. One of them is a valid prefix, the other one isn't.
+17.4 is not an integer, so this is an error (not because of the + but
because of the . followed by additional digits). +17 is I think a valid
integer value but the + will be dropped in the canonical representation.
Yes, but 2001:db8::1/64 isn't valid prefix (because the host portion of
the prefix isn't 0) so why should it be "rounded" when 17.4 shouldn't be
rounded if an integer input is expected?
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
